The Speaker took the chair at 3 : 25 p.m.
PROVINCE OF MANITOBA
Hon. Sir George-É. Cartier moved concurrence on the amendments to the Bill intituled:
"An Act to amend and continue the Act 32 and
33 Victoria chapter, 3; and to establish and
provide for the government of the Province of
Manitoba."
Hon. Mr. McDougall said the resolution of
which he had given notice, and which he was
about to move, was one which was much more
likely to give satisfaction to a great majority of
the people now residing in the proposed Province; and, also in his judgement much
better
calculated to give satisfaction to the people of
the Dominion. He did not believe that the circumstances of the country either now
or
within the next two or three years would be
such as to justify the establishment of a Government of the kind proposed by the Bill
of the
hon. gentlemen opposite. The House at its last
session almost unanimously, with a full knowledge of the settlement of that country,
of the
position of the people, their numbers, habits,
and probable wants, decided on a measure of a
very different character from that now proposed by the Government. The measure of
the
Government was complained of in the country,
1452 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
and some of the newspapers of the Dominion
objected, after that measure passed the House,
on the ground that he did not recognize in any
way the political rights of people of that country, or rather their right to a voice
in the
formation of their Government. He thought it
unfortunate that they did not, and as a member
of that Government he took his share of the
blame for not more strongly recognizing the
rights of the people there to some share in the
Government of their country. If the Government of the day had come down with a measure
to amend that Bill so as to concede to the
people there and those shortly to go there the
right of managing their own affairs, although
in some of its details it might have been objectionable, he would not have proposed
an alternative measure to that which the Government
had proposed; but instead of framing a measure
of that kind, the Government had gone just as
far to the other extreme. They now erred just
as much in proposing a measure calculated for
people accustomed to Government, and the machinery of Government, in the Bill they
expected to pass that House, as they did last
session in adopting an autocratic system of
Government. Why should not the Government
take the happy medium? What pressure was
behind them which compelled them to give
those people, just emerging from a condition of
serfdom, that complex form of Government?
He had not heard from any source of information, reasons why it was expedient or necessary
in any degree. It was an expensive system,
and that expense would fall, not only on the
people of the new Province, but would burden
the whole Dominion. It would create dissatisfaction throughout the entire country.
They
had been obliged to make great concessions to
Nova Scotia. They had made great sacrifices to
obtain the good will of the Secretary of the
Provinces. But what inducement was there to
make a Bill of that kind for people who did not
ask for it? He protested against the Bill, and
called upon many of the members opposite,
whom he knew were zealous friends of the
Government and had discussed the various difficulties which met them in an earlier
part of
their career, but whom he knew were as
anxious as any one on his side of the House to
see a successful Bill framed, he called on them
to aid him in his endeavours to perfect the
measure. In the Lower Provinces the Government had lost many supporters in consequence
of the course they had taken in the matter. In
Lower Canada, though he was not aware of
any special causes of dissatisfaction, since the
views of that Province were likely to prevail,
he did not see any cause of complaint, but since
the rebellion of 1837, of which he had some
recollection, he had not known a time when
there was so much political excitement and
1453
dissatisfaction respecting the administration of
public affairs as in Ontario to-day. He had
never known so unpopular a Government; and
he had never known an Administration that
had lost friends to such an extent as the
present Government in dealing with that question, to say nothing of others. If the
measure
passed in its present shape it would add to the
dissatisfaction to such a degree in the Province
of Ontario, where the desire for Confederation
was the greatest, that the people would look
about for some means of release from that state
of affairs. He should move his resolutions, in
order to have them on the paper, and to give
hon. members an opportunity to vote for a
cheap Government for the North-West, in the
place of the expensive one proposed by the
Government measure. He had brought forward
his resolutions in the way he had in reply to a
taunt that had been thrown out by the Minister
of Militia.
Hon. Mr. McDougall said that he might have
brought forward a simple amendment advocating the same principles which would be more
likely to gain votes. The Government scheme
was an obscure and defective one, and could
never be worked out by an ignorant people,
which the member for Toronto said the people
up there were. In the 2nd clause, the Bill
referred to an Act which was puzzling in its
terms, and had already created difficulty in
Ontario. The Bill did not state the subjects on
which they could legislate, but sent them to a
doubtful Act. In his scheme he proposed to
make the Legislature the Government for local
purposes, that being a single Chamber; and he
had also adopted a franchise which was much
better suited to the requirements of the country than that proposed. The requirement
of one
year's residence would deprive the best settlers
of a vote, while leaving it in the hands of the
less educated inhabitants it would drive away
emigrants. They should give the franchise to
every British subject who stopped sufficiently
long in the country to show their intention to
remain there. He provided for no representation in the Dominion Legislature; but the
time
would come, of course, to reconsider this measure. He thought, in the changing circumstances
of the country, that they ought to legislate for
the present and not for the future. He denied,
owing to the want of sufficient evidence, that
the House had any right to accept the Bill
proposed as meeting the wishes of the people
in the Territory. With the exception of Judge
Black, they could not accept the so-called delegates as being the best authorities
to express
opinions on that subject. The representatives
1454 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
of the loyal people, who were all intelligent
men, would not pretend to discuss the two
schemes in their details in the character of
representing the whole people. They could only
express an opinion. The House, therefore, had
to consider merely what it thought was most
suited to the present state of the country,
(hear). The other difference between his plan
and that of the Government was in regard to
land. They must offer greater inducements to
emigrants than they would find in Minnesota,
if they wished to get them to come to their
Territory. He proposed to give them 200 acres
of land, a residence of 3 years, and a fee of $5,
instead of, as in the United States, 160 acres, 5
years, and $10. There were difficulties of various kinds in Minnesota, and several
Canadian
emigrants who had settled in that State had
waited upon him at Pembina, expressing their
wish to go into the Red River Territory if a
liberal land policy were adopted. That was the
case with many of the western States. The
superiority of the land was acknowledged. He
had adopted, with modifications, the American
homestead law, to which there was nothing
similar in the Government Bill. There was also
another provision very important which he did
not find in the Government Bill. He referred to
the school reserve lands. That principle was
adopted in the western States, and the good
results were very great, and it appeared that in
forming that new Province, they should adopt
that new system. He had put a provision into
his Bill with that view, putting the whole control of them under the local authority.
The
member for Toronto had on Saturday spoken
as if he held a brief from the Government—
(laughter)—and contended, on legal grounds,
that if any ill results had followed from his
(Hon. Mr. McDougall's) taking any steps to put
down the riot that he would be liable for them
until he had received the authority of the
Queen's proclamation. He denied entirely the
truth of his reasoning. Some remarks of his in
his dispatches had been referred to, but proved
nothing. The proclamation by the Queen was
required by the Act, and an Order in Council
only was required.
Hon. Mr. McDougall said he had the agreement of Government that it would be issued.
He had no notice that they had agreed to break
their bargain, and had a right to assume that
they would keep their faith. He had received a
few days before a letter from the Deputy-Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company, which
1455
stated: "We have received notice from the
Colonial Department that the transfer will
take place on the lst December in accordance
with the wishes expressed by the Canadian
Government." The date of that letter was the
25th of September. In addition to that letter he
received a letter from a member of the
Administration which though marked private
contained those words which might be made
public: "I received a letter from Mr. Rose, who
is making necessary arrangements for the payment of the ÂŁ300,000." This letter was
dated the
4th of November. There he had the most direct
information that the transfer would be made at
the date agreed on. Then it had been asserted
that he ought to have remained on the frontier
for further instructions, but what was he to do,
was he to send messengers who at that time of
the year might have lost their way, or who
might fail in carrying the document through to
its destination? No, under the circumstances,
since he could not do anything else, he had
acted in the manner in which he had done, not
anticipating in the failure of the Government
to keep faith with him. It seemed to some
persons that the acts of Riel were nothing, and
one hon. member had said with lugubrious
countenance, if they were noticed there would
follow a war of race against race. Did he mean
to say that there were any persons in Canada
who sympathized with the rebels? He did not
believe that there was any foundation for that
view. The insurrectionary party were the most
disreputable inhabitants of the country, and
were collected together by a bar room loafer,
and knowing the character of those men, he
was amazed to find that hon. gentlemen would
allow any expression to fall from them to the
effect that any attempt at restoring law and
order would occasion offence to the mind of
any one. So much for the charge brought by the
member for Toronto that he (Hon. Mr. McDougall), was not right in appealing to the
people,
in asking the civil magistrate to call together
the
posse comitatus to put down the riot that
then existed. Instead of being guilty of any
crime, any loyal subject in that country should
have used every means in his power to put
down the rebellion, and should have been supported by his country whatever the consequences
might have been. The course which
the hon. member for Hants pursued in Red
River was at least a most injudicious one, and
made his (Hon. Mr. McDougall's) position in
Red River a most difficult one. But what he felt
more keenly was that when he met the hon.
member for Hants, and when that hon. gentleman saw that he had his children with him,
and was taking them to a wild and distant
country, the hon. member did not warn him
that he might be prepared to defend himself or
find means of leaving them in safety if resist
1456
COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
ance was threatened. He (Hon. Mr. McDougall)
did think it was an inhuman act on the part of
that gentleman, knowing the difficulties to be
encountered in the beginning of winter, and
his party likely to be repulsed—that the hon.
gentleman did not whisper that it would be
expedient to leave his defenceless ones behind
and go forward alone. The hon. gentleman
might have made that suggestion and perhaps
that might account for the hard feelings he had
displayed towards the hon. member since; but
he (Hon. Mr. McDougall) had dealt with him
as a public man and with his public acts. He
thought it was very wrong that the hon.
member did not perform his duties, and for
much of the expense, trouble and difficulties in
Red River he thought that hon. gentleman was
responsible. He would conclude by moving that
the report be not now concurred in, but the Bill
be recommitted for the purpose of amending it
by the resolutions, which have already
appeared in the
Globe.
Hon. Sir George-É. Cartier said he was a
little surprised at the remarks of his hon.
friend—who belonged to the Liberal party of
Ontario, while he (Hon. Sir George E. Cartier)
belonged to the Conservative party of Lower
Canada, which was in reality the most liberal
party in the Dominion—had made. In proof of
that assertion he had only to refer to the struggle of the Lafontaine—Baldwin Government.
At
that time the Government of the day was supported by only 10 members out of 41 representatives
from Upper Canada. When Mr. Baldwin was in power he was supported, not by
Liberals, but by Conservatives. He therefore
claimed for his party that they were the most
liberal in the country, and he claimed to be
more liberal than the Opposition. The Government scheme was, if anything, too liberal,
judging from the terms of the hon. member.
The scheme of last year was said to be too
illiberal, and that one too liberal, and so he
came forward with an intermediate one. The
scheme of last year was, however, only to last
one year. He did not approve of what had been
done by the Red River people, (hear, hear). He
did not approve of their being always termed
rebels and insurgents, for they never pretended
that they were opposed to the sovereignty of
the Queen, (hear, hear). Not that he had the
least doubt that that was a prospective rebellion, so far as Canada was concerned,
but as
Canadian authority did not exist there, the
rebellion did not affect them, except by preventing them from exercising that power
which they were to claim under the Act. He did
not intend to refer to what had taken place in
the Territory.
1457
Hon. Sir George-É. Cartier said they ought
to drown those difficulties by liberal measures.
He thought the people in the Territory were
educated, and the conference at Red River
would contrast favourably with theirs at
Quebec. (Ironical hears.) The original inhabitants of Upper Canada were only 10,000
when
the Province was formed; and the settlers now
at Red River Territory would contrast favourably with them. The scheme of the Hon.
Mr.
McDougall would cause discontent, and keep
alive alarm and contention, thus preventing
the settlement of the country. The Government
Bill, if carried, would go abroad as the settlement of the Red River difficulty; whereas
the
bastard Municipal Government proposed by
the amendment would not achieve any such
end. It would put off the formation of a Province for three years, and the population
being
increased, the amount to be received by them,
instead of that proposed by the Government
Bill, would be the Dominion would have to pay
$13,000 on account of 80 cents per head for
17,000 of population, $23,604 being the amount
which ought to be credited to them on account
of the debt, and $30,000 to carry on their Government—making a total of $67,204. That
would carry on the Government for the next
ten years; and then, supposing their population
to have reached the limit of 400,000, to which
the grant of 80 cents applied, the expenses to
the Dominion would be $320,000 for 80 cents a
head, $23,604 representing the debt, and $30,000
for Civil Government, so that the highest
charge to which the Dominion could be subject
was $373,604 to secure what was to be so prosperous a Province. There could be no
doubt
about these figures, but in his scheme the hon.
gentleman would launch them into a territorial
Government. The present was the most advantageous time to take in that Province on
the
score of economy. Then he thought he had
demolished the argument of his hon. friend,
and here they were offered an opportunity of
erecting this Province at a cost of $67,000. If the
hon. member for Lanark had succeeded in
entering the Province, and establishing a Government as he proposed the cost would
have
greatly exceeded this sum. Then with respect
to retaining lands, as he had before asserted, it
was mainly with the object of constructing a
British Pacific Railroad, and the cost of managing those lands would fall on the Dominion
Government, and consequently the Government of Manitoba would be the most economical
of all local Governments in the Dominion.
The hon. member for Lanark had rendered a
just tribute to Judge Black who was without
doubt the most eminent man in the Territory.
Father Ritchot had been denounced by the hon.
member, but the only crime that could be
brought against him was that he was little
1458 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
conservant with political affairs; whether it
was so or no, he (Sir George—E. Cartier) would
say that since he had the honour of being
acquainted with Father Ritchot, he had found
him discharge his duty as a delegate in a very
moderate way, and with a strong desire that
such a measure should be passed as would
secure what was called the North-West Territory as a portion of Her Majesty's Dominions.
He had had plenty of opportunities to listen to
the reverend gentleman's loyal sentiments,
(hear, hear, and laughter.) Hon. members
opposite might laugh, but they should not dispute what had passed. In different interviews
with the rev. gentleman he found in these delegates gentlemen who were ready to accept
anything that was likely to produce peace. The
hon. gentleman said that those delegates did
not speak the wishes of the country, but did
the hon. gentleman mean to say that he did so,
(hear, hear). Had they not a better right to
accept the opinion of those men as being better
than that of the hon. gentleman opposite? With
regard to land grants, there had been a discussion before recess, and it was unnecessary
to
repeat the arguments then advanced. The Government intended to be liberal, and the
claims
of the half-breeds would be seen by those
interested, to have been considered. The Government agreed that the lots should be
200
acres. He might say that the intention of the
Government was to pursue a land policy which
would not be surpassed in liberality by any
Province in the Dominion, or any State in the
neighbouring Union, or by the Federal Government itself, (hear, hear.) If the children
of
half-breeds should fail to avail themselves of
the liberal offers made them to settle on the
reserves, the land would be forfeited to the
Crown. With respect to the personal remarks
of the hon. member for Lanark, he would say
that after the affliction that hon. member had
sustained, and his appointment to the Governorship of the North-West, he (Sir George-E.
Cartier) offered him his support; but the Government was obliged to disapprove of
his
course in issuing the proclamation at Pembina.
The delay of payment was, no doubt, a plausible argument; but in the instructions
sent him,
he was told to wait further instructions before
taking any course of action. All his colleagues
were united in believing that the hon. member
had acted in the manner he thought best under
the circumstances. The hon. member should
have seen that, although Government could
not approve of the course he had taken, and
though there had been illegalities in his conduct, they had never impugned his motives.
He
would conclude by reiterating that their measure was more liberal, just, and economical
than
the measure proposed by his hon. friend.
1459
Mr. Mackenzie had seconded the motion of
the hon. member for Lanark, not because he
approved of it altogether, but because its general principles were sound. He believed
the
Government were proceeding now as much in
a wrong direction as last session, when passing
a Bill practically ignoring the right of the
people of that Territory, and which ultimately
led to the difficulties which brought on that
discussion. He believed it was necessary in
preparing a form of constitution, by which
those people should have some other expression of popular will than that which had
been
proposed by the so called delegates of Riel or of
other representatives of the loyal people of the
North-West. In other words, it was absolutely
essential to form a Constitution by which they
should have some legal expression of opinion
of the people of that Territory. A state of tutelage was necessary for that country,
such as
was in existence in the Territories of the
United States before aspiring to State constitutions. An error in the beginning was
much
more serious and more difficult to be overcome
than an error of any period of its subsequent
history, and while at the present time, they
might provide what would meet the views of
the people for a temporary period, that would
be the wisest course to pursue under the circumstances. If hon. gentlemen had consulted
the people of that Territory they would have
found that the Constitution which the Government had prepared did not meet with their
approbation. In the Bill of Rights it was
demanded that a portion of the public land
should be appropriated for the benefit of public
schools; but the Bill did not do so. They
required Free Homestead and Pre-emption
Laws; but the Government provided nothing of
that sort; and yet the Government contended
that, in the absence of those two very necessary provisions, that had obtained in
all the
American Territories—although without all
those it was still more liberal than the scheme
submitted to the House by the hon. member for
Lanark. There was nothing more conducive to
the prosperity of the people than ample provisions for schools, and to give the freest
access
to public lands to enable them to prepare
homes for themselves. The restrictive policy
embraced in the 27th clause was entirely
unasked for by the people there. He had listened during the debate on the Bill to
ascertain
1460 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
where the demand for that came from; but
from the beginning till now, no one had vouchsafed an explanation as to who this demand
for
these reservations came from. The effect of
this policy would be to shut up that portion of
the Territory from immediate settlement, and
turn emigrants from Manitoba to lands not
more inviting, but less difficult of access, on
the other side of the line. He was a little pained
by the assertion of the hon. Minister of Militia
that those people had never thrown off their
allegiance, and had never done anything
wrong, but stood up for the protection of their
rights. If the people had been in any way
oppressed or if any violation of their rights had
taken place, he would not only justify but
assist them so far as he could, if in the Territory or where he could render them
assistance. A
people suffering under oppression had a right
to use almost any force to preserve their rights;
but in that case there had been no oppression,
but merely a groundless fear that their rights
might be interfered with, as the only incentives to their acts of disloyalty and violence.
But the hon. Minister of Militia was entirely
wrong when he asserted that they never threw
off their allegiance. Did the hon. Minister ever
read their declaration of independence? He
would read it further—"We solemnly declare,
in the name of our constituents and in our own
names, before God and man, that from the day
the Government we always respected abandoned us to the people of a foreign land, Rupert's
Land and the North-West became free and
exempt from allegiance to that same Government." Yet, after that declaration, the
hon. gentleman said the people never threw off their
allegiance. Could the hon. gentleman, at any
period of his own history, have used more violent language?
Mr. Mackenzie said they must be exceedingly obliged to the Minister of Militia for being
their constant defendant. They owed no alle
1461
giance to Canada or the Hudson's Bay Company, and could only throw off their allegiance
to the Government of Great Britain, and he
believed if that measure were submitted to the
people of that Territory it would be a most
effectual way to secure the peace and contentment which this House desired to see.
The hon.
Minister of Militia seemed to treat very lightly
the treatment received by the member for
Lanark in the North-West; while he (Mr.
Mackenzie) felt little political sympathy for
his hon. friend, he in common with the majority of the people in Upper Canada sympathized
with him in the way the hon. member had been
treated by his colleagues. He would therefore
move that the Bill be committed, with a view
to the adoption in the Bill of a Temporary and
Territorial form of government. "That the
Legislature should be chosen by popular voice,
and there should be representation in the
Dominion Parliament, combining with due
regard the rights of the people and the
economical administration of local affairs, the
means of obtaining a knowledge of the public
will as to form of the Legislature and the
tenure of the lands of the Province, thus
obviating the putting upon them of a form of
government to which they might object."
(Hear.) If that notice were carried it would
have the effect of modifying the Bill, and he
did not move it against the Bill as a whole, but
merely desired to adopt a temporary mode of
government that would leave the House a year
or perhaps two years for consideration, to
obtain a more intimate knowledge of the country than at present they possess. At the
time
the last Bill was framed very few hon. members knew anything of the matter. Their
information was then very defective, and was so
yet. He did not doubt that the information as to
the Territory, derived from Father Ritchot and
Judge Black might have been tolerably correct.
He had no doubt the information derived from
the loyal delegates was quite correct; but Judge
Black was prejudiced in his views by his connection with the Hudson's Bay Company,
if
they had in the first place a territorial form of
government, a Legislature elected in the same
way as provided by the Bill of the Government,
that would give an indication of the Government and Constitution, knowing that it
was in
accordance with the views of the people, and
not in accordance with the views of a few
parties who were interested more or less in
having a particular Constitution. At the
present time they knew that the Hudson's Bay
Company were, to a certain extent, responsible
for the whole trouble in that Province. They
knew that Judge Black was connected with
that Company, and that all his feelings looked
in that direction, and he was therefore the
most dangerous man to consult in framing this
1462 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
measure. As to the question of boundary, he
thought the proposed limit was too small—at
any rate it ought to be 100 degrees west. So
insignificant was the Province that the Government might well put up a board fence
around it and whitewash it. (Laughter.)
Upon the question of concurrence in the
resolutions reported from the Committee of the
Whole, respecting the proposed new Province
of Manitoba,
Hon. Mr. Howe said—I did not think, sir,
that it would facilitate the progress of this
important measure to enter into personal
explanations or to reply till this moment to
some of the speeches made by hon. members;
but the time, I believe, has arrived when the
House must feel that some explanations on my
part are called for. Now let me say here that I
listened the other day with a great deal of
patience to a long tirade from the hon. member
for Lambton, in which he was as usual personally abusive; and I may repeat in his
presence
here, what I have had occasion to say in the
Committee of public accounts not long ago,
that that hon. gentleman, with all his pretensions to moderation and fairness, never
loses
an opportunity of saying a savage and offensive thing in an exceedingly disagreeable
and
unpleasant manner. (Hear, hear.) Not only did
the hon. member for Lambton assail me, but
some of his followers—all the small curs,
"Tray, Blanche, and Sweet-heart," (laughter)
one after the other ran barking at my heels. I
felt a little like the man who was struck in the
pillory for an hour, and after everybody had
pelted dead cats and brick-bats at him for their
own amusement, exclaimed at the end of the
hour, "my turn has come," and then got up and
returned all the dead cats and brick-bats at the
heads of his tormentors. (Laughter.) I do not,
however, think it would be quite in accordance
with good taste to return all the foul and
unclean things that have been hurled at me in
the course of this debate. I will, therefore, pass
over a great deal of the bitter, unjust and
unnecessary language of the hon. member for
Lambton. I pass over also the observations of
the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr.
Young), partly because I was not present
throughout, and did not hear the whole of
them. I will pass over too the skim-milk oratory of the hon. member for South Oxford.
(Laughter.) And I will pass over the philosophical declamations of my hon. friend
from Bothwell, but I may say of him in passing that I am
not aware he ever says an ill-natured thing if
he can help it. Now, the burden of all these
people's songs, as it has been the burden of the
1463
hon. member for North Lanark's violent oratory, has been my ill-treatment of the ex-Governor
of the North-West Territory. With regard
to that, perhaps the House will allow me to
make an explanation or two. The hon. member
for Lambton complained that I was opposed to
the policy of the acquisition of the North-West
Territory; but the hon. gentleman forgot to tell
the House what my policy was in regard to that
question, as developed in a long speech which I
addressed to the House two years ago. Was it to
maintain the authority of the Hudson's Bay
Company? No. Was it to lock up that great
country as a hunting-ground for the benefit of
that Company? No. What then was it? It was to
call upon the British Government to do its
duty to British America, to do its duty to the
empire at large, by throwing that country open
to settlement, and inviting the starving millions of other parts of the Empire and
of
Europe to enter and find homes—to populate
the land, and make it fruitful for their own
happiness. (Hear.) My impression was, that the
Imperial Government owed it to us, owed it to
their own dignity, owed it to the integrity of
the Empire, to so deal with that country that
no man would ever wish or ever dare to hoist
there any flag except the British flag. My
policy was that the Imperial Government
should have hoisted the British flag in that
Territory, thrown it open to settlement,
assumed all the responsibility of governing it,
and ultimately organize it as a British Province, one of the family of nations in
the
Empire. Sir, I did object to Canada assuming
the responsibility of all that work; I pointed
out, with the forecast, I think, of statesmanship, the perils we would run, the difficulties
we would encounter, by pursuing such a
course, and I thought the burden thrown upon
Canada was a burden too heavy for this young
country to bear. Now, in view of the events
that have occurred within the past few months,
in view of the very things we have here to deal
with to-night, in view of the difficulty we have
in obtaining possession of that country, and in
view of the obstacles which may still exist to
our getting into it, I think I may well claim
that I foresaw and pointed out the perils into
which the policy of a majority of this House
was likely to lead us. Was I right or was I
wrong? Why, if that country had been opened
up and developed by Great Britain as I proposed, we would have had the benefit of
its
trade, our young men would have found there a
field for their energy and enterprise, and
Canada would no more have been bound to
defend and protect it, than she is bound to
protect other Provinces under the British
Crown. But a majority of this House decided
otherwise; and when I came up from my own
Province and joined the Government I accept
1464 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
ed that policy, as I accepted also the policy of
Confederation, and I appeal to hon. gentlemen
sitting around me, who have been my colleagues in the Cabinet for the last year, to
say
whether there is one of them who will for a
moment countenence the belief that in working out that policy they have not had my
loyal,
warm and earnest support. (Cheers from the
ministerial seats). As for the hon. member for
North Lanark, I will admit at once that, having
acted with him, as a colleague, associated with
me in transacting the business of the country,
if I had shown him the evil treatment which he
and other hon. members on that side of the
House complained of, I would be undeserving
of the character of a gentleman and unworthy
to address a body of gentlemen, such as those
who are sitting around me. Now, what are the
facts? I had known the Hon. Mr. McDougall—I
beg his pardon for naming him—for some
years, as I had known most of the other leading
public men of Canada. From the moment I sat
down with him in the Privy Council this was
his position; Mr. Ferguson Blair was dead, Mr.
Howland had been appointed Lieut. Governor
of Ontario, and he sat there as the only Liberal,
except my hon. friend from New Brunswick,
Hon. Mr. Tilley, in the Cabinet. Now, if I have
been anything all my life in politics, I have
been a Liberal. The party with which I acted in
Nova Scotia, and which for many years I had
the honour of leading—that great party which
secured for that Province all its important and
useful public Works, and which carried into
practical operation every broad and liberal
principle of responsible Government and civil
and religious liberty—was the Liberal party.
We called ourselves Liberals and were not
ashamed of the name. When I came up here,
then, I found the hon. gentleman the only Liberal representing Canada in the Government.
Was it not natural that he should have my
sympathy, as he had my cordial support, in
every measure which he proposed? He had my
sympathy and as far as I know or can remember an unkind word never passed between
us.
When I changed my place in the Government
and became Secretary of State for the Provinces, the proposition made to me to accept
that office was made on his own sofa in his
own house, with no one present but the
Premier, the hon. gentleman and myself. I had
reason to believe that that offer had his full
approbation or I would have never considered
it. Well, what then? The moment that I ascertained that our colleagues, who were then
scattered about, approved of the appointment, I
accepted the position. What was the next step?
I felt that I could not assume the duties of that
office with justice to my own character, to this
House, and with satisfaction to the country,
without using every means in my power of
1465
acquiring that information with regard to the
North-West which it is now apparent not a
man at the Council-board was possessed of,
although the hon. member for North Lanark
was the man of all others who ought to have
had that information. The moment it was
determined that I should accept the office, I
consulted with that hon. member, and in
accordance with what was then decided upon,
he and I went up together to Thunder Bay to
overlook the progress of the road-makers
under Mr. Dawson at that place and to examine
the approaches to the country. Now, it is very
easy after events have transpired to perceive
errors and mistakes and where they ought to
have been corrected, (hear, hear). I am willing
to give the hon. member for North Lanark
credit for everything that is his due; but I tell
him in presence of this House that the first
mistake he made was this: when we were at
Thunder Bay he should not have come back to
Canada, but if he had taken a canoe and gone
quietly into the North-West Territory—(hear,
hear)—he would have done an act of superlative wisdom for which he would have got
infinite credit at this hour. He preferred, however,
to go into the Territory in great state. He talks
of my not stopping on the prairie to confer
with him, but if any one could have seen the
great cavalcade of carriages, the number of
women and children in his train on that frosty
morning, it would not have been wondered at
that I did not stop, (laughter). Why, Sir George
Simpson, who for years was governor of the
Hudson's Bay Company, or Governor McTavish never went in such state through the country
before. Sir George Simpson in his frequent
and arduous journeyings over the country
often went in a bark canoe attended by a few
Indian guides and living upon the roughest
fare; governor McTavish, I have no doubt, travels as plainly; but the hon. gentleman
went out
there as a great satrap paying a visit to his
Province, with an amount of following, a grandeur of equipage and a display of pomp
that
was enough to tempt the cupidity of all the
half-breeds in the country, (great laughter).
That, I say, was his first blunder, and a great
blunder it was. Now, then, what was my object
in going to the North-West? I have already
said, for information. Was information concerning that distant country so abundant
that
no more was required? Why, not a member of
the Privy Council, nor so far as I am aware, not
a member of this House had ever seen or read
the records of the council of the colony—the
governing body of the district of Assiniboia. I
performed that work, and of the seven or eight
days I spent in the Territory it occupied two of
them. There was here at Ottawa no copy of the
statutes in operation in that country. I brought
copies of them home with me for the informa
1466 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
tion of the Minister of Justice and the other
members of the Government. And does not
everybody now feel that there was a vast
amount of information that ought to have been
acquired before the hon. gentleman started
upon his journey? I profess to know nothing
more of the country than anybody else. I
entered into it in entire ignorance of the state
of affairs there, but I was not long in ascertaining that all was not so serene as
our friends
imagined, (hear, hear). I have said that to gain
information was my object. When I started
from home I intended to go there alone, but
when I got to Toronto, I had the honour of
dining with the Hon. Mr. Macpherson, a Senator of the Dominion and the Hon. Mr. Carling,
and it was those gentlemen that first suggested
the propriety of my associating myself with a
party of Canadian merchants who were going
out to that country, (hear, hear). The hon.
member for Lambton, with that ill-natured
spitefulness which he so often exhibits in this
House, spoke the other day of Mr. Sanford, one
of those merchants, in a very offensive way,
and I think that among other things he called
him a Yankee annexationist. Well, I make the
declaration in this House that if he was or is a
Yankee annexationist, my introduction to him
was by hon. gentlemen of this House who
knew him intimately and who represented him
as being entirely upright and honest. I was
three or four weeks in his company, and I do
not hesitate to say that a more intelligent,
thoughtful and upright man cannot, in my
opinion, be selected from among the ranks of
the commercial men of Canada. (Hear, hear.) I
have no knowledge as to where he was born,
whether it was in the Mother country, the
United States or Canada; but if I can say, that
every word he uttered, every thought that he
expressed, was indicative of a high and honorable character, and of a warm regard
for the
interests of Canada in that North-West Territory. (Hear, hear.) At all events, if
I got into
bad company—and I do not for a moment
admit that I did—my hon. friends whom I
named are a little to blame for it, and not
myself. Now, it has been said that I ought to
have held public meetings while I was in the
Territory, and explained to the people the
intentions of the Canadian Government. Why,
sir, while I was at St. Paul I met many commercial men who had heard and seen me at
the
Detroit commercial convention, and who did
me the honor of saying that they would like to
hear me speak again on public questions, and
that if I consented to attend they would call a
meeting there, so anxious were the people to
know what Canada meant, and what policy
was intended to be pursued in regard to the
North-West. It would have given me great personal gratification to have appeared before
an
1467
assemblage of the people of St. Paul in the
large hall which they offered to procure for the
purpose, and to have made a speech to them
upon a subject in which they as well as ourselves took an interest. But I was not
sent
abroad to deliver lectures and make speeches
to the public. I was sent abroad for a totally
different purpose—to get information. I therefore declined the invitation which was
so
courteously and flatteringly given to me, and
held no meeting at St. Paul. When I got to
Winnipeg I soon began to get an inkling into
the state of affairs there. We hear a great deal
about the "loyal" people of the Territory—the
Canadian party as they are called, Why, sir, I
am old enough to remember when the people of
Nova Scotia first claimed the great right of
Responsible Government, who it was that
raised the loyal cry then in that Province; and
what was that loyal cry? Why, that we who
demanded that right, and who were opposed to
the "loyal" people of that day, were malcontents and rebels to the Crown. And do we
not
know that in every one of these Provinces
there was a jolly lot of nice old people, very
good in their way, and highly respectable and
influential, who in all our struggles for responsible representative government have
always
claimed that they were the "loyal" people
par
excellence, and that the masses of the people
were rebels and traitors? Do we not know that
it was to the obstinacy and injustice of the
"loyal" people in Upper Canada that much of
the responsibility for the troubles of 1837-8 is
due; and that the same characteristics of the
"loyal" people in Lower Canada went far to
cause the unfortunate events which occurred
at the same time in that Province? (Hear,
hear.) And with regard to the Lower Provinces
of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, all I can
say is that we had a body of people there who
claimed all the loyalty, all the intelligence and
all the respectability, and held that the masses
of the people counted for nothing.
1468 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
Hon. Mr. Howe—Well, I found that they had
a similar class of "loyal" people in the Territory, who assumed all the airs of the
superior
race. Who were they? People who had chiefly
gone in to survey the country or make a road,
and their quality may be guessed from the fact
that they allowed themselves, one and all of
them, to be cooped up in Dr. Schultz's house,
forty or fifty in number, and were captured
like a coop of chicken by this man Riel, who
has been called a bar-room loafer, but who, at
any rate on that occasion, showed sufficient
resolution and strategical ability to secure
them. He may be a bar-room loafer, but he had
brains enough to coop them up in that house,
and then to drive them into Fort Garry like a
flock of sheep. (Laughter and signs of dissent.)
Hon. Mr. Howe—Why, sir, with all their
professions of loyalty not one of them fired a
shot for Canada; but surrendered at discretion,
were marched off to prison, and there they
stayed. And that shows pretty conclusively, I
think, what their power and influence was in
the Territory, and what their tact and military
strategy were. This was the handful of people
for whom we were to sacrifice the North-West
Territory and its inhabitants! Why, I do not
hesitate to say that if we were to adopt the
policy urged by the hon. member for North
Lanark, and take this handful of men into our
councils—shutting out from all consideration
the descendants of the original owners of the
soil, who form the mass of the people there,
and framing a measure to please this body of
"loyal" people alone, instead of a measure of
justice to all—we would have done an act of
madness which we would never cease to repent
and regret. (Hear, hear.) Among the other
accusations that have been made against me
was that I hauled down the British flag or
somebody's flag with the word "Canada" upon
it. Now, what are the facts touching that
matter? They are simply these: as I rode into
Winnipeg I saw a flag flying over a house at
the roadside with "Canada" upon it. I was told
it had been hoisted in honor of my arrival by a
person putting himself forward as the representative of Canada and Canadian interests,
1469
and who was nursing and fostering this little
clique, and holding out the idea that he was
something very little less than the Government
of Canada. (Cries of "Name.") I need not mention any name just now. The moment I ascertained
that fact I found further that there was
an individual who made himself marvellously
conspicuous by writing letters home to the
Canadian newspapers ridiculing the half-breed
people. I had no desire—rather a decided objection—to have my name associated with
parties
of that kind, and by refusing to do so it seems I
incurred the undying hostility of those people
who afterwards were largely instrumental in
deceiving the member for North Lanark as to
the real condition of affairs in the Territory.
But as to the flag, did I pull it down? Not I. I
never went near it. Did I order any one to pull
it down? No, not I. I never gave or had a right
to give any order about it. How long it hung
there I do not know. The man who hoisted it
seemed to enjoy his demonstration without
interruption, for so far as I saw or knew no
attempt was made to interfere with him. At
any rate, there is not a word of truth in the
accusation that I either hauled it down myself,
or ordered any one else to do so. (Hear, hear.)
But the member for Lambton says I ought to
have held meetings and "seen everybody" in
the Territory, explaining to them the intentions of this Dominion. Well, I think that
hon.
gentlemen who know me know that I very
rarely shrink from attending a public meeting
wherever I may be asked, if I should consider
it my duty to attend. Since I have resided in
Ottawa I have attended a dozen or more literary or social gatherings of one kind or
another,
and I rather approve of the practice of members of the Government setting a good example,
by appearing on such public occasions
wherever the object is a worthy and creditable
one. But hon. members must see that in Winnipeg it is altogether a different matter—that
the population there who it now seems it
would have been desirable to operate upon
were those French half-breeds who have since
prevented the hon. gentleman's entrance into
the Territory. Now, I appeal to hon. gentlemen
to say how it was possible for me to address
them intelligibly, however anxious I might
have been, when in early life I neglected to do
what I advise every young man in Canada to
do—to speak the French language fluently?
(Hear, hear.) Suppose I had called public meetings, could I have addressed them in
their own
language with which alone they are familiar?
What possible good could I have effected? Suppose I had called meetings and made speeches
which would have had the effect of agitating
the people there—one party siding with me and
my views and another perhaps opposing
them-what would have been said then? I
1470 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
would then have been told—and hon. gentlemen opposite would have been the first to
say
it—that the people there were all quiet when I
went amongst them, that I started them up by
my speeches, that their feelings were roused
and their jealousies excited by my over—anxiety for personal display—that, in fact,
everything would have gone on quietly and satisfactorily if I had not set the people
in motion by
my very
maladroit statements. (Hear, hear.)
Sir, I was not such a fool. I am rather too old a
bird to be caught in a trap like that—(laughter)—and for the reasons I have given
now and
on a former occasion those meetings were not
held; and looking back at the course of events
as they have occurred since, I am delighted
that I resisted the invitation that was given to
me. When I say invitation I do not mean that
any public invitation was extended to me. Two
or three people came into my room and asked
me whether I would not address a meeting of
the inhabitants; but no requisition was got up,
nor was any formal proposition made to me in
any shape, to hold a public meeting in the
Territory. So much for that charge. (Hear,
hear.) Now, who were the chief persons that I
saw? We were told that I threw myself into the
hands of one Bannatyne—that I would not see
any of the loyal people. Why, sir, that is not
true! I saw Dr. Schultz, and if he had chosen to
walk into my room, he could have come there
and given me any information that he pleased.
My room was open every day to any one in
Winnipeg—to every man of the loyal party:
they came and went as they pleased, and were
free to give any information they had to
impart. Well, sir, I saw the Bishop of Rupert's
Land, Archdeacon McLean, Judge Black, Rev.
Mr. Young, Mr. Kennedy, and many others,
and I saw, also, Governor McTavish, and if
there was going to be an insurrection, was it
not probable that some of all these gentleman
would have told me of it? Was it likely that
there could be such a thing known to these
hon. gentlemen, and yet none of them impart it
to me? (Hear.) Surely not a man of them knew
of it, and if not a man of them knew of it, how
was I to find it out? (Hear.) Colonel Dennis
was there, and I saw him several times—but he
had no information to give, and he gave me
none. Mr. Snow was there, and he never came
near me, for reasons which were sufficiently
clear to his own mind. He had lived there
fifteen months, and if he had any reason to
believe that there was to be an insurrection,
why did he not come and give me information
of it?
1471
Hon. Mr. Howe—Now, sir, I was bound to be
back here by the lst November, but let me say
that as I was driving about, I found that there
were sources of uneasiness in the population,
and there was a good deal of fear and alarm
about the result of what was to occur. Well, sir,
to every leading man who called upon me, and
to every leading man I called upon, I frankly
and openly avowed what the policy of Canada
was and would be. I frankly declared that
although the measure passed last session was
to some extent a preliminary measure, they
might be assured that the Government meant
fairly by them—that the intention was to draw
in the talent and information of the country
round Mr. McDougall, and that as soon as the
population were ready, we were prepared and
intended to give them the same institutions as
existed in the other Provinces, (hear). Now,
sir, with regard to the hon. member for Lanark
himself, I anticipated no personal objections. I
knew nothing to his prejudice, but I found
many rumours afloat, and much suspicion.
First, there was the Manitoulin case. I never
heard of it till I got to Winnipeg. I could not
explain it, for it was beyond the reach of my
comprehension, (hear). But I found that there
was a great deal of objection in certain quarters, arising out of this Manitoulin
difficulty,
(hear). Whatever that was, sir, I accept the
explanation made by the hon. Minister of Justice, when he said, being cognizant of
the facts,
that he acquitted the hon. member for North
Lanark of any blame. But, I say, perhaps the
people of that country had not all the facts, for
if they had a strong prejudice existed against
the hon. member for North Lanark, arising out
of that transaction. What more? Why, sir, there
were scattered personal objections to the hon.
gentleman. And when I found that this sort of
prejudice was afloat in the minds of the people,
I declare in the presence of the hon. gentleman,
as I do in the presence of this House, that
one-third of every sentence I uttered on the
borders of the Red River and Assiniboine, was
a personal defence of William McDougall,
(hear, hear). After defending him from all
comers, I often used a phrase to which exception was formerly taken, that if "he was
a
sensible man" he would do just as I am doing—
1472 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
he will come in here and see for himself. He
will not make an appointment until he has
seen who people are, and what interests they
represent. This is what he will do if he is a
"sensible man," as I certainly, at that time,
believed him to be. Perhaps I have changed my
opinion since, (hear, hear, and laughter.) Now,
I must say that in some way or other, there was
a strong prejudice against him—they did not
like his manners and distrusted his fitful
temper, and I begin to have great doubts
whether on that score their information was
not better than my own, (renewed laughter).
But at all events, to sum it all up, the general
feeling, I must say, was that he was not "the
man for Galway"—that he was not the style of
man that they wanted. But I declare in his
presence, upon my honour, that against all
assailants in all circles I made a loyal defence
of my colleague, the hon. member for North
Lanark, (hear). Then came the complaints of
the hon. gentleman as to my conduct when I
met him on the Prairie. He complains that I did
not tell him something that I did not know,
(laughter). Why, sir, I explained on a former
day—and if I did not make the explanation
clear and perfect then, let me make it clear and
perfect now—the last interview that I had was
with Governor McTavish, who is a man I take
it that will not falsify his word. I took him by
his hand and begged of him to sink all feeling
of antagonism, and when Mr. McDougall came
into the Territory that he would take a seat in
his Council and give him the best advice,
(hear). That was the last advice that I gave to
Governor McTavish. What were his last words
to me? Shaking me by the hand, he said: "Mr.
Howe, if this experiment fails, the Company
will cease to exist," (hear), and he said also
that he had summoned the Council of
Assiniboia to prepare an address of welcome to
the hon. member for North Lanark on his
coming into the Territory, (hear). Now, sir, I
rode out and met the hon. gentleman on the
Prairie, and what could I have told him if I had
kept him there a month; I could have told him
nothing but that whatever the uneasiness,
whatever the personal objections on one side,
there was the assurance of Governor McTavish, at the last interview that I had with
him,
that the existence of the company was bound
up in the success of Canada's experiment, and
that he was preparing an address of welcome to
Canada's Governor. (Hear.) And what then
Sir? I felt if it had not been such a day as it
was; that it would have been pleasant to have
had an hour's chat and to tell him what had
occurred, and how I had met objections. Then
the hon. gentleman complains that I did not
write to him. Well, Sir, as I have shown I had
nothing very particular to write about. When I
got to Fort Abercrombie, I was tired and
1473
weary—I was to start next day in a coach for a
three days' ride—there was no quiet place in
which I could write, and I felt that three or
four days would make very little difference;
and now, Sir, I hold in my hand a letter
marked private, which has not been brought
down, and I will read it, leaving out a single
passage. It is as follows:—
Private
St. Paul, Oct. 31st, 1869.
My Dear McDougall,—I got here yesterday at
noon, and go east to-morrow morning. I was
sorry not to have had an hour's chat with you,
but what I had to say lies so obviously on the
surface that your own judgment will guide you
correctly, even if it be unsaid. I found a great
deal of misapprehension and prejudice afloat,
and did my best to dissipate it.
* * * * * It would be a great mistake to
patronize a little clique of persons at war with
the more influential elements of society. These
are sufficiently mixed and heterogeneous to
require delicate handling, but they must form
the basis of any successful Government; and if
dealt with firmly, courteously and justly, I
have no doubt can be organized and utilized,
till the foundation is widened by immigration.
I hope that MacTavish, who is much esteemed,
will take a seat in the Council, and give you
cordial support. The half-breeds are a peculiar
people, like our breeds are a peculiar people,
like our fishermen and lumbermen, but they do
a large amount of the rough work of the country, which nobody else can do so well.
I hope
the Priests will counsel them wisely, and that
you may be able to draw in some of their
leaders to cooperate in the business of Government. With the English population there
will
be no difficulty, if we except two or three
American traders, who are annexationists. The
Indian question was not presented to me in
any form, as I saw none of their chiefs, but
they repudiate the idea of being sold by the
Company, and some form of treaty or arrangement may be necessary. Anything will be
better than an Indian war at that distance from
the centre. I have a keen insight into the difficulties before you, and will do my
best to
make your mission a success.
1474 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
Believe me, yours truly,
JOSEPH HOWE.
Sir, what more could I write to any man than
that, (hear). Well, I returned to Ottawa, and by
and by came the news from the hon. gentleman
of the obstructions presented to his entrance,
and then at the back of that came the issue of
his proclamation and of the commission which
he had given to Colonel Dennis. Now, let me
say that I have had some periods of anxiety in
my political life. I have passed through some
exciting scenes. I have had in the course of my
life to assume some heavy responsibilities, but,
sir, whatever the hon. member for North
Lanark may have felt in his lonely hut at
Pembina, he cannot conceive—at least he
seems never to have appreciated—the feelings
with which his colleagues at Ottawa read these
remarkable documents, when we found that he
had precipitated a crisis—that without waiting
for instructions he had issued a proclamation
in the name of the Queen, founded upon an Act
which had never been performed. He says,
"You ought to have paid the money?" I gave
him an answer to that question the other day.
His own letters, his own despatches were an
answer, the very fact that he was barred out of
the country by an insurrectionary force was
sufficient warranty for the non—payment of the
money. When these extraordinary documents
came to Ottawa, I have no hesitation in saying
that I entertained no unkind feelings for the
hon. gentleman. My hon. friends here know
that there was not one of his colleagues but felt
that in issuing this proclamation, he had acted
in advance of the Sovereign, probably with
good intentions, but had misconceived his
instructions and exceeded his powers, that he
was not the lawful Governor of the Territory,
and had issued a commission to Colonel
Dennis, which no man could read then without
horror, or can read now without laughing. For
several days the letter of censure was laid
before the Council and it was thoughtfully
considered. I have been taunted in this matter,
and a personal quarrel with the hon. gentleman
has been attempted to be forced upon me. Sir, I
have no hesitation to accept the responsibility
of that despatch. There was not a member of
the Council who could sleep in his bed from
doubt and apprehension during that week of
suspense. Why, sir, if the Almighty had not
interposed, and we are told that "there's a
divinity doth shape our ends rough hew them
as we may" and the ends of the ex-Governor
were rough enough God knows, but the divinity robed around that people with too much
good sense to rise at the bidding of a stranger
and cut each other's throats. With all the zeal
exerted by the missionary he sent into the
country, he could not persuade the people to
1475
rise. At last, the Bishop of Rupert's Land took
him in hand, and told him that his proceedings
were calculated to involve the settlement in
carnage. (Hear.) Now, sir, how did we feel?
Day after day we met in Council, and waited
for information. Suppose Col. Dennis had succeeded in raising the population—suppose
fire
and sword had passed up the Assiniboia and
down the Red River—do you suppose that one
of us, sitting on the Treasury benches now,
thought that the loss of office was a matter of
deep consideration? No sir, sorrow and apprehension were the feelings uppermost at
the
moment because, lovers of our country, and
anxious for a peaceful solution of the difficulties in the West, we did not know at
what hour
we might be arraigned as murderers, having
sacked houses, committed outrages and
destroyed the whole thriving settlement, (hear,
hear). Now sir, I have no hesitation in saying
that I would not have sat one hour in the
council, if I had been called upon to assume the
responsibility of that man's acts, or of the proceedings of his Lieutenant acting
under him.
Sir, I am proud to know that we stand here
to-day with our public despatches in our
hands. By and by, when these are collected and
put together in a brief pamphlet, I may
bequeath them to my children as honourable
testimony of the way in which their father
acted in these trying, harassing and difficult
circumstances, (hear, hear). Now I may say,
Mr. Speaker, that I am almost inclined to
apologize to you and the House for using a few
words the other day, that were intemperate
and unparliamentary, but the language of the
member for North Lanark was so unbecoming—his language to his own colleagues on the
Treasury benches, was so discourteous, that
perhaps my temper got the better of my judgment. All I can say is, that I leave it
to the
House to decide whether I have ever before
violated the decorum of debate—whether I
have ever made an unkind, unjust attack upon
anybody, (hear)—if I have, all I can say is, that
I am sorry for it. Now sir, I think this—that
when that gentleman was charging us with
holding negotiations with the emissaries of
Riel, he was hardly making a fair charge,
because, when he wrote to Riel, he was as
much a rebel as he is now. He had not, it is
true, committed a murder, but he was as much
up in arms then as he is now, (hear) and if it is
wrong for us to hold any negotiations with the
delegates, it was equally wrong for the hon.
member for Lanark to write that letter, and
above all things, to say that he "trusted in his
honor," and hoped to meet him in secret without any of his friends being present.
(Hear.)
Now sir, I come to the hon. gentleman's return.
I admit at once to the House that if he had
returned to Ottawa, and said to his colleagues,
1476 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
"I think you have acted hastily and unkindly
by me. Hear all the circumstances and all my
explanations, and judge of me then." We would
have judged fairly and treated him kindly. But
before he returned we heard rumours of interviews with the hon. gentleman, and in
all sorts
of reports we had evidence of his feelings. In
his speech at Lanark his ill-temper broke out,
and afterwards, in one of the papers which
supports the hon. gentleman—I will not undertake to say that he writes in it—but at
any rate
it supports the hon. gentleman, we found that
Sir George-É. Cartier was denounced as a murderer! Langevin was a murderer! Howe was
a
murderer! (Shame.) And all this language
hurled at hon. gentlemen who were labouring
to re-establish peace, (cheers). Now, with
regard to this man Riel who shot Scott? Somebody has said that "a blunder is worse
than a
crime," but to shoot Scott was a blunder as
well as a crime, (hear). The man could not
have understood the policy of his own position.
He made a gross mistake in shooting that man;
and not a member of the Privy Council, nor a
man in this House but condemns him for it,
(cheers). By and by a gentleman named Alcock
was quoted, and it was said that he was so
disgusted with me that he refused to drive me
again, but I have here a letter written by him
to an Ontario paper, and afterwards republished in the Canadian News, in which he
speaks of "the honour of driving Mr. Howe"
about the Territory, (hear); and I have the
testimony of gentlemen who were with us on
that drive, who knew that Mr. Alcock invited
us to go with him the following day to Portage
la Prairie, which we were unable to do. Then,
Mr. Sanford was challenged as a witness, and
we were told that he and I drank champagne
with Riel, but I never saw Riel in all my life,
and I never drank champagne either with him
or with anybody at Red River. In fact, I do not
believe that there was a bottle of champagne in
the Territory fit to drink. Then Mr. Turner,
who is a highly respectable man, and is, or was,
chairman of the Chamber of Commerce at
Hamilton, and who travelled with me for a
month, contradicted all that had been written.
Captain Kennedy was next appealed to, and by
and by out comes a letter from the Captain,
flatly contradicting my assailants, and I have
here a letter from Mrs. Kennedy, which a
friend sent me the other day. I will not read it
(cries of "read" and laughter). It is hardly fair
to read it, she heard every word I uttered in
her house, but I would not like to read a lady's
letter in Parliament, (laughter). I am sure that
anybody who saw the lady herself would not
doubt her, for intelligence and ladylike manner
she could not be exceeded by any lady in
Canada, (cries of "read, read"). I hold in my
hand a piece of evidence of another description
1477
from the Bishop of Rupert's Land, written in a
letter to a gentleman here in Canada; and does
he charge Mr. Howe with uttering disloyal sentiments or anything of the kind? No,
sir, but
the Bishop of Rupert's Land says that he himself had no suspicion that there was to
be an
outbreak, and he says, speaking of Mr. Howe,
personally, he only regrets that he had not
come into the country six months before, (hear,
hear). Now, sir, I need not, I think, waste more
time with these absurd slanders. Gentlemen
who surround me here have been charged with
being the cause of Scott's murder. But let me
trace the causes of that unhappy event. The
ex—Governor and his lieutenant created an
impression in the Territory that any man
might take up arms and make war, and the
very movement of Col. Dennis led to the capture of the Canadians. The expedition from
the
Portage followed, and led to the capture of
Captain Boulton and his people, and that to the
subsequent death of Scott, without any man in
the Government, or any man in Canada,
having any knowledge of the state of things
there, or anything to do with it. But there is
one thing that ought to be remembered: Captain Boulton himself was sentenced to die,
and
who saved his life? Why, sir, Donald A. Smith,
the delegate sent there by this Government.
Hon. Mr. Howe—Well, I believe it. The hon.
member for Lambton says that the Bill for last
year was defective because there was no popular choice. Well, sir, if it was so, who
is most to
blame? I, who was a comparative stranger here
last spring, or the hon. member for North
Lanark, who had the whole conduct of that
matter? Then we were told by the hon. member
that the country belonged to Canada. Yes, but
has Canada got it? Why sir, we have got a long
wearisome journey to travel before we can say
the fertile belt belongs to Canada. We have an
expedition to send to that country, and by and
by we may be able to say with some degree of
truth that the fertile belt belongs to us. The
hon. member made another observation about
an apostate Canadian that, he says, lives at St.
Paul's. Why, sir, the apostate Canadian, the
hon. gentleman does not know. In the beautiful
county of Annapolis lives Mr. Joseph Whelock.
He is a man wealthy and highly respectable. I
have long known, and have been a welcome
1478 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
guest in, his cultivated and charming family,
and, sir, a more honourable name and a more
upright man than Joseph Whelock never existed. His son, a printer, emigrated to Minnesota,
and commenced to publish a newspaper where
he now lives and, by dint of thrift, great ability, and energy, he has worked his
way up to be
to-day the editor of the leading organ of the
Republican party in that State. When I went to
St. Paul, this gentleman did me the honor to
call upon me. I was pleased to see him, having
known that he had, by his profession, made for
himself an honorable position, and since the
last few weeks he has been elected by his party
to be postmaster of the city of St. Paul. Now,
that gentleman showed me, going and coming,
all the courtesy which one gentleman could
show another, and when, sir, hardly knowing
who to trust to get a letter to the hon. member
for North Lanark, when the roads were unsafe,
when the mails were opened, I sent two letters
to his care. But I would not ask young Whelock
to commit an act that might compromise his
political sentiments and position in that country, but I know that I could trust him.
As the
Minister of Justice testified, the other day, he
was worthy of confidence, and the letters
reached their destination through the Collector
of Customs, who the member of North Lanark
himself acknowledged had acted fairly by him.
Now, sir, I say this in explanation because I
know Joe Whelock above anything dishonorable, but he resides in St. Paul, and in his
high
political position, he advocates, of course, the
opinions of his party.
Hon. Mr. Howe—The hon. member for
Lambton thought proper to apply to me the
other night the word traitor.
Hon. Mr. Howe—I beg the hon. member for
Lambton's pardon, it was the honourable
member for North Lanark, who made use of
the term. I am just as well pleased, for I don't
much care what the hon. member says. Why,
sir, I used to read in the Canadian papers of
one "look to Washington McDougall," who was
represented as a dangerous character—something like a "traitor." I do not mean to
say it
was true. In point of fact, I do not believe it
was true, but I only give it, by way of illustration, to show how easily foul names
can be
used, and how apt they are to stick; but what is
more, I took up a number of the Toronto
Globe,
and what was the reason Mr. George Brown
1479
gave for not sustaining the nomination of the
member of North Lanark to the Governorship
of the North-West? Why, sir, it was that the
people there who read the
Globe would not
receive or accept him because they looked upon
him as a "traitor" to his party. The hon. gentleman should talk more moderately, and
as to
personal, unkindly feelings, all I can say is
this—that I have never deserved them at his
hands, and never returned them, until he laid
himself open to attack, by hard language so
scurrilous and unjust. For the serenity of
debate and for the dignity of this House, it
perhaps will be becoming that we should both
hereafter weigh our words well, but I can only
say this to the hon. gentleman, when foul
names are applied to me by anybody whether
within the walls of this House or beyond them,
I have too much of the spirit of a gentleman to
allow anybody to take liberties with impunity.
The hon. member for Lambton thinks that he
is not bound to defend the hon. member here.
Why, sir, during the last three years, since I sat
here, the hon. member for Lambton seemed to
hate with an undying hatred the hon. member
for North Lanark, but there they are now like
twin brothers. I fancy the hon. member for
Lambton folding him in his arms with his
peculiarly sanctimonious countenance, and
saying "come to my bosom my own stricken
deer." (Laughter.) The member for Lambton
told us they knew everything that was going to
be done at Red River. Well, sir, I can only say if
they do, it must be by inspiration, for I have
never written to a living soul in that country
since I came out of it. My feelings, my opinions
and my policy are embodied in the instructions
given to our delegates, and in the public papers
that are signed by my hand, but if there is any
information of a surreptitious or improper
character, I can only say it has never been
given by me. Sir, the hon. member told us, that
had I known of the impending insurrection, I
should have remained in the North-West. Now,
Sir, there the member for Lambton and I are in
accord. I have no hesitation in saying that if I
had had the slightest idea that there was to be
an armed insurrection there, I would have
stayed under any circumstances of inconvenience, difficulty or danger. Sir, the hon.
gentleman has spoken of Scott, the person who was
sent as a delegate here, as a wretched, drunken
loafer. Perhaps so. I have no reason to know
what he is, but all I can say is that it is hardly
fair for gentlemen on the floor of this House to
apply opprobrious language to men who are
not here to defend themselves. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. gentleman told us that he would not
confirm any of those old grants to the clergymen. Why would any hon. member take away
the lands that belong to the clergy of Canada?
Certainly not. And if these clergymen have got
1480 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
grants they will not require us to confirm their
titles. The law will do that, and to the law we
leave them. I will not discuss the education
clauses of the Bill. The Minister of Militia has
ably put all the points in reference to that
matter. I have, however, one or two words to
say on another branch, It has been said here
that we are giving to those people extravagant
grants of money. Now, sir, I have here among
my papers a statement showing how, year by
year, the State of Minnesota, when that State
was organized, received amounts granted by
the General Government; and it appears that
we are not dealing more liberally with this new
Province than the Government of the United
States dealt with Minnesota. Now, I have only
another word or two to say and then I shall sit
down. I have been especially anxious to see
what the hon. member for North Lanark would
give us instead of the Bill upon the table of the
House. Sir, he wishes to continue very nearly
the policy of last year.
Hon. Mr. Howe—The hon. member says "no,
no," but is he not desirous to establish a grand
sort of paternal despotism? He is at all events
giving us machinery which has not hitherto
been tried in any of the British Provinces, and
which we have had no opportunity to test. But
look at the contrast between our measure and
his own. We are giving a measure so generous,
liberal and just, that we can hand it to the
Imperial Government with pride, and we can
show it across the border to our American
neighbors, and say there is our measure for the
pacification and happiness and settlement of
that country, as liberal and as fair as any
territorial institution that you ever established; and, sir, we can say to the people
of
Canada we are giving these men the same
institutions under which the larger and smaller Provinces of this Dominion have flourished—a
measure worthy of the age in which
we live, and which we can hand down as a
testimony of its justice and liberality, to be
read and prized by our children. (Applause.)
1481
Mr. Bodwell denounced the personal character of the Speech of the hon. member, and felt
that the House and country must feel ashamed
and humiliated at it. The hon. member had
countenanced rebellion in the course of his
remarks. If he (Mr. Bodwell) wished to be
personal he might show how the hon. member
before he came out against Confederation was
under contract to edit a Confederate paper for
a salary of $3,500 per year. The hon. member in
an after-dinner speech, and while under the
influence of liquor, lost that situation by
expressing publicly anti-Confederation
speeches. Not content with opposing Confederation in the east, he found his way to
Red
River, and the result was the Winnipeg rebellion. The man who could speak in terms
of
praise of the rebels at Fort Garry, and compare
the loyal settlers who were imprisoned there to
fowls in a hen coop, was deserving the contempt of the country, and would be properly
estimated by the people of Ontario. If the
speech the House had just heard from the hon.
gentleman was a defence, he believed that the
House and country would agree with him that
it was a very lame one.
Hon. Mr. McDougall rose to say that he had
no great occasion to complain of the remarks of
the hon. member with respect to him personally. Any hon. member, however, who could
stand up to palliate and defend the acts of
those who were in armed rebellion to the
Dominion could hardly be called a loyal man.
What was wrong with the Cabinet? Did they
wish to encourage rebellion? Here, to—night,
the members of the Government had attempted
a defence of the rebellion. He denied that they
expounded the views of the country at large. If
there could be any excuse for that rebellion, he
could not blame hon. gentlemen for speaking
as they had done; but he denied that anything
had ever been done in the North-West to provoke that rebellion. There was nothing
to justify it, and nothing in its whole course to palliate
its enormity, or deserve the defence of the hon.
member for Hants. It was unfair to blame him
(Hon. Mr. McDougall) for the fatal results of
his journey into Red River, and the blunders
which brought about the rebellion. The blame,
if it lay with any one, lay with the Government, which had sent him Up and failed
to keep
faith with him. Whatever differences might
1482 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
have arisen between him and his hon. friend
from Hants, he gave that hon. member the
credit of having left a bright name on the pages
of the history of Nova Scotia; but in the North-
West he (Mr. McDougall) had been informed
that the hon. member had fomented rebellion.
When he heard it repeated on every side and
found the country in rebellion, he felt that the
hon. member had not treated him fairly—that
he had not acted honestly towards the Government of which he was a member and the
Dominion at large; and he certainly expected to
hear the hon. member explain away those
things, instead of dealing with other and more
trifling matters. Then, with respect to the
charge against the hon. member for assenting
to the hauling down of the British flag at Fort
Garry, the remarks of the hon. member himself
in a former debate on this subject were very
different from his denial during his speech
that night, and only confirmed the report that
had been circulated against him. The hon.
member produced a letter from Mrs. Kennedy
as a certificate of character, but did not read it.
No doubt it was very flattering to the member
for Hants, for that hon. gentleman was quite a
lady's man; but even taking it as a valuable
document, who was this Mrs. Kennedy? Why it
was a notorious fact that she was an active
sympathizer with the rebels, and made clothing for them. The hon. member for Colchester
had been kind enough to produce a letter from
the Postmaster at Pembina, containing some
sneering remarks towards him (Hon. Mr.
McDougall) and party, and complimenting
Capt. Cameron. Well, he hoped the hon. members opposite could obtain better recommendations
of character. He referred to the issue of
the proclamation, and could not see anything
in the document at which any sensible man
should laugh. With respect to the blame cast on
Col. Dennis and his followers, he considered it
unjust to condemn men who endeavoured at
the risk of their lives, to sustain law and order
and make the British flag respected in the
Territory. With respect to the assertion that he
(Hon. Mr. McDougall) had either written or
inspired neWSpaper attacks on the hon.
member for Hants, he denied that he had writ—
ten anything for the press since his return to
Canada, except the couple of letters which had
appeared over his name, and he had not inspired any newspaper article on any subject.
He
1483
would read a letter he had written to the Minister of Justice, stating his position.
Ottawa, January 20th, 1870.
My dear Sir John,—As I intend to leave for
Toronto to—morrow, and shall visit, and probably speak to my constituents before my
return, I desire to recapitulate, for greater certainty in future discussions, some
of the views
and opinions in regard to the present crisis in
the N orth-West, which I have expressed to you
and other members of the Cabinet since my
arrival in Ottawa. I also desire to mention
some of the points in your policy, in respect to
which I shall feel it my duty to raise an issue
in Parliament and in the country. In the first
place, I have tried to impress upon you, what I
firmly believe is the fact, that the resistance of
the priests and the French half—breeds to your
representative was not in any sense a personal
matter, as has been represented in Canada, but
was the result of a deep-laid, well planned, and
so far, well executed conspiracy to prevent the
union of Rupert's Land with Canada; that the
movement is directed, aided, and will, in the
spring, be openly joined by American politicians, filibusters and sympathizers, both
within and without the Territory, with a view
to its annexation to the United States—that the
rebels now in arms aver and believed that they
have sympathizing friends in Canada in high
places, even in the Cabinet, who will delay, if
they do not entirely prevent, all coersive measures until they can establish their
Provisional
Government on a firm basis, and support it
with a force that will render any attempt by
Canada to displace it impossible: that all
attempts to pursuade or talk over the leaders of
the conspiracy by the missionaries you have
sent them, and by the offers of such terms of
concessions as you can constitutionally make,
will certainly fail; and that if they seem to
listen or yield, which, so far, they are not
inclined to do, for they have imprisoned your
missionaries, you will soon discover that their
only object is to gain time—that in a word the
movement of Riel & Co., is a political revolution, and not the mere outbreak of ignorant
half—breeds exasperated by stories mostly
untrue; of individual wrong-doing, which they
fear may be repeated, and have taken up arms
to prevent that—while they are tools of cunning men, and these stories have helped
to
sharpen them for their work. The leaders and
secret abettors of the conspiracy know what
they are about, and will yield to one argument,
and one only—"force." Viewing the case in this
light, and with the best opportunity which any
Canadian official has had to see and judge, I
have urged immediate preparation for the
transportation of a sufficient force in the
1484 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
spring to crush the outbreak at a blow. Volunteers of the right stamp and in sufficient
numbers can be had at a week's notice. The Indians
are all on our side, and if properly handled,
will prove most valuable allies. More than half
the settlers in the Territory will join your
force, the moment it appears beyond the Lake
of the Woods; and the result in such a case
could not be doubtful. I have suggested the
sending of the men now under Mr. Dawson, at
Thunder Bay, to clear the portages for the
passage of carts and supplies; the building of
boats for the rivers, and the purchase in Scotland of two small iron steamers for
the lakes,
to be sent out in pieces of not more than 500 or
600 pounds. I have also suggested the purchase
of telegraph cable for Lakes Huron and Superior, to be laid down at the earliest moment
practicable so as to establish a prompt communication with the expedition by the Government.
I have told you, and I repeat the statement here, that my Commission, or Charter,
prescriptive though it be, is at your service,
and that my opinion is that it should be held by
a military man until law and order are restored
in the Territory. On the second head I have
denounced your refusal to accept the transfer
of the Territory on the lst of December, as
agreed upon by the three Governments, as an
act of unpardonable folly, not to say a crime
which placed me in the position of an impostor,
and but for the providential interference in the
eye of the law, a filibuster and a felon; that by
your continued refusal to accept the transfer,
you are abetting the rebels, giving them the
very encouragement and position they seek, to
wit: that of a Government ex necessitate and
exposing your agents to be bold, as they have
been bold, without the power of reply,—that
they have no business there as the representatives of Canada, until Canada acquires
a right
to the country; that your pretence of an agreement, expressed or implied, that the
temporal
Government was to hand over the Territory to
Canada with all its inhabitants, half-breeds
and Indians, in a friendly mood and without
arms in their hands was unwarranted in law
and unjust to both the Hudson's Bay Company
and the Imperial Government; and finally, that
your hesitating half-hearted policy for the
future, predicated upon the representations of
the rebels and their abettors with whom Mr.
Howe established friendly relations when in
the Territory and from whom you have derived
your chief council in this whole matter, is the
sure and speedy mode of establishing an
independent Government in the North-West
hostile to Canada and friendly to the United
States, and before the summer is over, able to
maintain its position by force. Only yesterday
Mr. Howe, the Secretary of State, in whose
hands this matter is placed, met my arguments
1485
for a prompt, decided and sufficient preparation and the immediate acceptance of the
Territory by asking:—"How can we prevent the
Americans from taking it? Where shall we find
money to pay the cost? What will it be worth
when we get it, etc.?" When I used the word
'rebels' in speaking of Riel, McKenny & Co., he
objected, and declared upon his soul that, if he
was in their place, he would feel and act just as
they have done. I shall answer all these questions in another place, as I answered
them on
the spot, but with a little amplification. I
believe that all our struggles and sacrifices,
and hopes of the last five years are on the eye
of failure and disappointment through the
blunders and incompetency, not to say the bad
faith, of a majority of your Cabinet. Believing
this, I have a plain duty to perform, and I shall
endeavour, God giving me health and courage,
to do it effectually.
Believe me, still, personally, your friend and
well wisher,
WM. MCDOUGALL.
Sir John A. Macdonald, K.C.B.
With regard to the Bill at present before the
House, the matter discussed and proposed in it
was a great one, for they heard that a deputation was on its way from British Columbia
with a view to seek an entrance into the Confederation. He should always aid any attempt
to aid any scheme of Confederation, but did
not think that the Government Bill would aid
in accomplishing the object, and he therefore
could not give his support to it.
Hon. Mr. Cameron hoped this would close
the personal discussion. He was bound to confess, however, that he had never heard
a more
injudicious speech than that of Hon. Mr. Howe
this evening. He could not be surprised if the
hon. gentleman had spoken in that manner
that his words had been misunderstood, and
the advice he had tendered had been accepted
in a stronger sense than perhaps he intended.
He objected to the amendment of the hon.
member for Lambton as being vague and offering nothing to the consideration of the
House,
whereas in the Government scheme they had
something to discuss. He thought it essential
that definite steps should be taken, and while
disapproving some of the clauses of the Government Bill, he could not but support
it as
affording a settlement of the question in
dispute.
1486 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
Mr. Jones (Leeds and Grenville) said from
calculations he had made, there would be only
280,000 acres left for settlement after providing
the reserves. He dreaded the responsibility of
sending an army.
A division was then taken on Mr. Mackenzie's amendment with the following result:—
Yeas, 35; Nays, 95.
Yeas—Messrs. Ault, Bodwell, Bolton, Bowell,
Bowman, Brown, Connell, Drew, Hagar,
Holton, Macdonald (Glengarry), MacFarlane,
Mackenzie, Magill, McConkey, McDougall
(Lanark), McMonies, Metcalfe, Mills, Morison
(Victoria North), Munroe, Oliver, Redford,
Ross (Prince Edward), Ross (Wellington,
C.R.), Rymal, Scatcherd, Snider, Stirton, Wallace, Wells, White, Whitehead, Wright
(York,
Ontario, W.R.), and Young—-35.
Nays—Messrs. Archambault, Archibald,
Beaty, Beaubien, BĂ©chard, Bellerose, Benoit,
Blanchet, Bourassa, Bown, Brousseau, Burton,
Cameron (Peel), Campbell, Carling, Caron,
Cartier (Sir G.-E.), Cartwright, Casault,
Cayley, Chamberlin, Chauveau, Cheval,
Cimon, Costigan, Coupal, Crawford (Brockville), Currier, Dobbie, Dorion, Dufresne,
Dunkin, Ferguson, Forbes, Fortier, Fortin,
Gaucher, Gaudet, Geoffrion, Gendron, Gibbs,
Godin, Grant, Gray, Grover, Heath, Hincks
(Sir F.), Holmes, Howe, Huot, Hurdon, Irvine,
Jackson, Joly, Jones (Leeds and Grenville),
Keeler, Kierzkowski, Killam, Kirkpatrick,
Lacerte, Langevin, Langlois, Lawson, McDonald (Lunenburg). McDonald (Middlesex
West), Masson (Soulanges), Masson (Terrebonne), McDougall (Trois-RiviÉres),
McKeagney, McMillan, Merritt, Morris, Morrison (Niagara), O'Connor, Pelletier, Perry,
Pinsonneault, Pope, Pouliot, Pozer, Read, Renaud,
Robitaille, Ross (Dundas), Ross (Victoria,
N.S.), Ryan (King's, N.B.), Savary, Scriver,
Shanly, Stephenson, Tilley, Tremblay, Walsh,
Willson, and Wright (Ottawa County).—95.
Mr. Young explained that he could not vote
for the whole of the resolutions of Hon. Mr.
McDougall, although some of them he
approved of. If there was any chance of their
being carried, and therefore of their being considered and amended in Committee, he
would
vote for them; but as there was not he should
not vote for them and thereby accept them in
their entirety. He was still opposed to the Government scheme.
1487
Division was then taken. Yeas, 11; Nays, 120.
Yeas—Messrs. Bolton, Connell, Macdonald
(Glengarry), Mackenzie, McDougall (Lanark),
McMonies, Metcalfe, Rymal, Wallace, Wells,
and White.—11.
Nays—Messrs. Archambault, Archibald,
Ault, Beaty, Beaubien, BĂ©chard, Bellerose,
Benoit, Blanchet, Bodwell, Bourassa, Bowell,
Bowman, Bown, Brousseau, Brown, Burton,
Cameron (Peel), Campbell, Carling, Caron,
Cartier (Sir G.-E.), Cartwright, Casault,
Cayley, Chamberlin, Chauveau, Cheval,
Cimon, Costigan, Coupal, Crawford (Brockville), Currier, Dobbie, Dorion, Drew,
Dufresne, Dunkin, Ferguson, Forbes, Fortier,
Fortin, Gaucher, Gaudet, Geoffrion, Gendron,
Gibbs, Godin, Grant, Gray, Grover, Hagar,
Heath, Hincks (Sir F.), Holmes, Holton, Howe,
Huot, Hurdon, Irvine, Jackson, Joly, Jones
(Leeds and Grenville), Keeler, Kierzkowski,
Killam, Kirkpatrick, Lacerte, Langevin, Langlois, Lawson, McDonald (Lunenburg), McDonald
(Middlesex West), MacFarlane, Magill,
Masson (Soulanges), Masson (Terrebonne),
McConkey, McDougall (Trois-RiviÉres),
McKeagney, McMillan, Merritt, Mills, Morison
(Victoria North), Morris, Morrison (Niagara),
Munroe, O'Connor, Oliver, Pelletier, Perry,
Pinsonneault, Pope, Pouliot, Pozer, Read, Redford, Renaud, Robitaille, Ross (Dundas),
Ross
(Prince Edward), R0ss (Victoria, N.S.), Ross
(Wellington, C.R.), Ryan (King's, N.B.),
Savary, Scatcherd, Scriver, Shanly, Snider,
Stephenson, Stirton, Thompson (Haldimand),
Tilley, Tremblay, Walsh, Whitehead, Willson,
Wright (Ottawa County), Wright (York,
Ontario, W.R.), and Young.—120.
Mr. Ferguson moved in amendment—That
the boundaries begin at a point where the
meridian 96 degrees west intersects parallel 52
degrees north latitude, thence due west along
said parallel of 52 degrees north to the intersection of meridian of 100 degrees west,
thence
due south to the 49th parallel, thence across the
Lake of the Woods to the Mouth of the Winnipeg River, then due north to Lake Winnipeg
to the place of beginning.
Mr. Cartwright moved in amendment a
provision that it shall be lawful to the Parliament of Canada to enlarge and make
such
changes in the boundary as may appear expedient from time to time.
After some discussion,
Mr. Cartwright's amendment was put to the
vote and lost by yeas, 52; nays, 72.
1488 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
Yeas—Messrs. Ault, Bodwell, Bowell,
Bowman, Brown, Cartwright, Connell, Currier,
Dobbie, Drew, Ferguson, Forbes, Gibbs, Grant,
Grover, Hagar, Holmes, Jackson, Jones (Leeds
and Grenville), Kirkpatrick, Lawson, Macdonald (Glengarry), MacFarlane, Mackenzie,
Magill, McConkey, McDougall (Lanark),
McMonies, Merritt, Metcalfe, Mills, Morison
(Victoria North), Munroe, Oliver, Perry, Pope,
Redford, Ross (Dundas), Ross (Prince
Edward), Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Ross (Wellington, C.R.), Rymal, Scatcherd, Snider,
Stirton,
Wallace, Wells, White, Whitehead, Willson,
Wright (York, Ontario, W.R.), and Young—52.
Nays—Messrs. Archambault, Beaty, Beaubien, Béchard, Bellerose, Benoit, Blanchet, Bourassa,
Bown, Brousseau, Campbell, Carling,
Cartier (Sir G.-E.), Casault, Cayley, Chamberlin, Chauveau, Cheval, Cimon, Costigan,
Coupal, Crawford (Brockville), Dorion,
Dufresne, Dunkin, Fortier, Fortin, Gaucher,
Gaudet, Geoffrion, Gendron, Godin, Gray,
Heath, Hincks (Sir F.), Holton, Huot, Howe,
Hurdon, Joly, Keeler, Kierzkowski, Killam,
Lacerte, Langevin, Langlois, McDonald
(Lunenbul'g), McDonald (Middlesex West),
Masson (Soulanges), Masson (Terrebonne),
McDougall (Trois-Rivieres), McKeagney,
McMillan, Morris, Morrison (Niagara), O'Connor, Pelletier, Pinsonneault, Pouliot,
Pozer,
Read, Renaud, Robitaille, Ryan (King's, N.B.),
Savary, Scriver, Shanly, Stephenson, Tilley,
Tremblay, and Wright (Ottawa County).—72.
Mr. Mackenzie moved a further amendment
to the amendment, to fix the boundary two
degrees further westward than in the amendment by Mr. Ferguson, viz; 102 degrees west.
After some discussion a division was taken,
yeas, 47; nays, 74.
Yeas—Messrs. Ault, Bodwell, Bowell,
Bowman, Brown, Cartwright, Connell, Currier,
Dobbie, Drew, Ferguson, Forbes, Gibbs, Grant,
Grover, Hagar, Jones (Leeds and Grenville),
Macdonald (Glengarry), MacFarlane, Mackenzie, Magill, McConkey, McDougall (Lanark),
McMonies, Merritt, Metcalfe, Mills, Morison
(Victoria North), Munroe, Oliver, Perry, Redford, Ross (Dundas), Ross (Prince Edward),
Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Ross (Wellington, C.R.),
Rymal, Scatcherd, Snider, Stirton, Wallace,
Wells, White, Whitehead, Willson, Wright
(York, Ontario, W.R.), and Young—47.
Nays—Messrs. Archambault, Beaty, Beaubien, Béchard, Bellerose, Benoit, Blanchet, Bourassa,
Bown, Brousseau,, Campbell, Carling,
Caron, Cartier (Sir G.—E.), Casault, Cayley,
Chamberlin, Chauveau, Cheval, Cimon, Costigan, Coupal, Crawford (Brockville), Dorion,
1489
Dufresne, Dunkin, Fortier, Fortin, Gaucher,
Gaudet, Geoffrion, Gendron, Godin, Gray,
Hincks (Sir F.), Holton, Howe, Huot, Hurdon,
Jackson, Joly, Keeler, Kierzkowski, Killam,
Kirkpatrick, Lacerte, Langevin, Langlois,
Lawson, McDonald (Lunenburg), McDonald
(Middlesex West), Masson (Soulanges),
Masson (Terrebonne), McDougall (Trois-
Rivières), McKeagney, McMillan, Morris, Morrison (Niagara), O'Connor, Pelletier, Pinsonneault,
Pope, Pouliot, Pozer, Read, Renaud,
Robitaille, Ryan (King's, N.B.), Scriver,
Shanly, Stephenson, Tilley, Tremblay, and
Walsh.—74.
A division was taken on Mr. Ferguson's
amendment, yeas, 49; nays, 73.
Yeas—Messrs. Ault, Bodwell, BOWell,
Bowman, Brown, Cartwright, Connell, Currier,
Dobbie, Drew, Ferguson, Forbes, Gibbs, Grant,
Grover, Hagar, Jones (Leeds and Grenville),
Lawson, Macdonald (Glengarry), MacFarlane,
Mackenzie, Magill, McConkey, McDougall
(Lanark), McMonies, Merritt, Metcalfe, Mills,
Morison (Victoria North), Munroe, Oliver,
Perry, Redford, Ross (Dundas), Ross (Prince
Edward), Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Ross (Wellington, C.R.), Rymal, Scatcherd, Snider,
Stirton,
Wallace, Walsh, Wells, White, Whitehead, Willson, Wright (York, Ontario, W.R.), and
Young—49.
Nays—Messrs. Archambault, Archibald,
Beaty, Beaubien, BĂ©chard, Bellerose, Benoit,
Blanchet, Bourassa, Bown, Brousseau, Campbell, Carling, Caron, Cartier (Sir G.-E.),
Casault, Cayley, Chamberlin, Chauveau,
Cheval, Cimon, Costigan, Coupal, Crawford
(Brockville), Dorion, Dufresne, Dunkin, For-
tier, Fortin, Gaucher, Gaudet, Geoffrion, Gendron, Godin, Gray, Hincks (Sir F.), Howe,
Huot, Hurdon, Jackson, Joly, Keeler, Kierzkowski, Killam, Kirkpatrick, Lacerte, Langevin,
McDonald (Lunenburg), McDonald (Middlesex West), Masson (Soulanges), Masson
(Terrebonne), McDougall (Trois-Riviéres),
McKeagney, McMillan, Morris, Morrison
(Niagara), O'Connor, Pelletier, Pinsonneault,
Pope, Pouliot, Pozer, Read, Renaud, Robitaille,
Ryan (King's, N.B.), Savary, Scriver, Shanly,
Stephenson, Tilley, and Tremblay—73.
Mr. Mills moved an amendment with a view
to extend the provisions of independence of
Parliament Act to members elected by Manitoba.
After some discussion a division was taken,
yeas, 45; nays, 72.
Yeas—Messrs. Ault, Bodwell, Bowell
Bowman, Brown, Connell, Dobbie, Dorion,
Drew, Ferguson, Geoffrion, Godin, Grover,
1490 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
Hagar, Holton, Jones (Leeds and Grenville),
Kierzkowski, Killam, Macdonald (Glengarry),
MacFarlane, Mackenzie, McConkey, McDougall (Lanark), McMonies, Metcalfe, Mills,
Morison (Victoria North), Munroe, Oliver,
Pelletier, Perry, Pozer, Redford, Ross
(Dundas), Ross (Prince Edward), Ross (Wellington, C.R.), Scatcherd, Snider, Stirton,
Wallace, Wells, White, Whitehead, Wright (York,
Ontario, W.R.), and Young—45.
Nays—Messrs. Archambault, Beaty, Beaubien, Béchard, Bellerose, Benoit, Blanchet, Bourassa,
Bown, Brousseau, Campbell, Carling,
Caron, Cartier (Sir G.-É.), Casault, Cayley,
Chamberlin, Chauveau, Cheval, Cimon, Costigan, Coupal, Crawford (Brockville), Currier,
Dufresne, Dunkin, Forbes, Fortier, Fortin,
Gaucher, Gaudet, Gendron, Gibbs, Grant,
Gray, Hincks (Sir F.), Holmes, Howe, Huot,
Hurdon, Joly, Keeler, Kirkpatrick, Lacerte,
Langevin, Langlois, Lawson, McDonald (Middlesex West), Masson (Soulanges), Masson
(Terrebonne), McDougall (Trois-Rivières),
McKeagney, McMillan, Merritt, Morris, Morrison (Niagara), O'Connor, Pinsonneault,
Pope,
Pouliot, Read, Renaud, Robitaille, Ryan
(King's, N.B.), Savary, Scriver, Shanly, Stephenson, Tilley, Tremblay, Walsh, and
Willson.—72.
Mr. Ferguson moved an amendment striking
out clause 27, providing half-breed reservation
of 1,400,000 acres; lost by yeas, 40; nays, 77.
Yeas—Messrs. Ault, Bodwell, Bowell,
Bowman, Brown, Connell, Currier, Dobbie,
Drew, Ferguson, Grant, Hagar, Holmes, Jones
(Leeds and Grenville), Macdonald (Glengarry), MacFarlane, Mackenzie, Magill, McConkey,
McDougall (Lanark), McMonies, Metcalfe,
Morison (Victoria North), Munroe, Oliver,
Perry, Redford, Ross (Dundas), Ross (Prince
Edward), Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Scatcherd,
Snider, Stirton, Wallace, Wells, White, Whitehead, Willson, Wright, (York, Ontario,
W.R.),
and Young—40.
Nays—Messrs. Archambault, Beaty, Beaubien, Béchard, Bellerose, Benoit, Blanchet, Bourassa,
Bown, Brousseau, Campbell, Carling,
Caron, Cartier (Sir. G.-É.), Casault, Cayley,
Chamberlin, Chauveau, Cheval, Cimon, Costigan, Coupal, Crawford (Brockville), Dorion,
Dufresne, Dunkin, Forbes, Fortier, Fortin,
Gaucher, Gaudet, Geoffrion, Gendron, Gibbs,
Godin, Gray, Hincks. (Sir F.), Holton, Howe,
Huot, Hurdon, Jackson, Joly, Keeler, Kierzkowski, Killam, Kirkpatrick, Lacerte, Langevin,
Langlois, Lawson, McDonald (Middlesex
West), Masson (Soulanges), Masson (Ter
1491
rebonne), McDougall (Trois-Riviéres),
McKeagney, McMillan, Merritt, Mills, Morris,
Morrison (Niagara), O'Connor, Pelletier, Pinsonneault, Pope, Pouliot, Pozer, Read,
Renaud,
Robitaille, Ryan (King's, N.B.), Savary, Scriver, Shanly, Stephenson, Tilley, and
Walsh.—77.
Mr. Mackenzie moved an amendment to the
clause defining qualifications of voters,
Lost—Yeas, 38; Nays, 74.
Yeas—Messrs. Ault, Bodwell, Bowell,
Bowman, Brown, Conne11, Dobbie, Drew, Ferguson, Grover, Hagar, Jones (Leeds and Grenville),
Macdonald (G1engarry), MacFarlane,
Mackenzie, Magill, McConkey, McDouga11
(Lanark), McMonies, Metcalfe, Mills, Morison
(Victoria North), Munroe, Oliver, Perry, Redford, Ross (Dundas), Ross (Prince Edward),
Scatcherd, Snider, Stirton, Wallace, Wells,
White, Whitehead, Willson, Wright (York,
Ontario, W.R.), and Young—38.
Nays—Messrs. Archambault, Beaty, Beaubien, Béchard, Bellerose, Benoit, Blanchet, Bourassa,
Brousseau, Campbell, Carling, Caron,
Cartier (Sir G.—E.), Casault, Cayley, Chamberlin, Chauveau, Cheval, Cimon, Costigan,
Coupal, Crawford (Brockville), Dorion,
Dufresne, Dunkin, Forbes, Fortier, Fortin,
Gaucher, Gaudet, Geoffrion, Gendron, Gibbs,
Godin, Gray, Hincks (Sir F.), Holmes, Holton,
Howe, Huot, Hurdon, Jackson, Joly, Keeler,
Kierzkowski, Killam, Lacerte, Langevin, Langlois, Lawson, McDonald (Middlesex West),
Masson (Soulanges), Masson (Terrebonne),
McDougall (Trois-Riviéres ), McKeagney,
McMillan, Merritt, Morris, Morrison (Niagara),
O'Connor, Pelletier, Pinsonneault, Pope, Pouliot, Pozer, Read, Renaud, Robitaille,
Ryan
(King's N.B.), Scriver, Shanly, Stephenson,
Tilley, and Walsh.—74.
Mr. Drew moved an amendment that the
first Parliament should continue for two years,
Lost—Yeas, 41; Nays, 66.
Yeas—Messrs. Ault, Bodwell, Bowell,
Bowman, Brown, Connell, Crawford (Brockville), Currier, Dobbie, Drew, Ferguson,
Grover, Hagar, Lawson, Macdonald (Glengarry), Mackenzie. McConkey, McDougall
(Lanark), McMonies, Merritt, Metcalfe, Mills,
Morison (Victoria North), Munroe, Oliver,
Perry, Pope, Redford, Ross (Dundas), Ross
(Prince Edward), Rymal, Scatcherd, Scriver,
Snider, Stirton, Wallace, Wells, White, Whitehead, Wright (York, Ontario, W.R.), and
Young.—41.
1492 COMMONS DEBATES May 9, 1870
Nays—Messrs. Archambault, Beaty, Beaubien, Béchard, Bellerose, Benoit, Blanchet, Bourassa,
Brousseau, Campbell, Carling, Caron,
Cartier (Sir G.-E.), Casault, Cayley, Chauveau, Cheval, Cimon, Costigan, Coupal,
Dorion, Dufresne, Dunkin, Forbes, Fortier,
Fortin, Gaucher, Gaudet, Geoffrion, Gendron,
Gibbs, Godin, Gray, Hincks (Sir F.), Holton,
Howe, Huot, Hurdon, Joly, Keeler, Kierzkowski, Lacerte, Langevin, Langlois, McDonald
(Middlesex West), Masson (Soulanges),
Masson (Terrebonne), McDougall (Trois-
Rivières), McKeagney, McMillan, Morris, Morrison (Niagara), O'Connor, Pelletier, Pinsonneault,
Pouliot, Pozer, Read, Renaud, Robitaille, Ryan (King's, N.B.), Savary, Tilley,
Walsh, Willson, and Wright (Ottawa County).—66.
At 3 a.m. Mr. Mackenzie moved the adjournment amid cries of "No, no", from the Ministerial
side.
This individual participated in:
